PDA

View Full Version : APP - we have met the enemy and he is us



Don Quixote
08-05-2009, 07:07 AM
again

Florida Bay's ecology on the brink of collapse Associated Press/AP Online

By BRIAN SKOLOFF

ISLAMORADA, Fla. - Boat captain Tad Burke looks out over Florida Bay and sees an ecosystem that's dying as politicians, land owners and environmentalists bicker.
He's been plying these waters for nearly 25 years, and has seen the declines in shrimp and lobster that use the bay as a nursery, and less of the coveted species like bonefish that draw recreational sportsmen from around the world.
"Bonefish used to be very prevalent, and now we don't see a tenth of the amount that we used to find in the bay, and even around the Keys because the habitat no longer supports the population," says Burke, head of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association.
Experts fear a collapse of the entire ecosystem, threatening not only some of the nation's most popular tourism destinations - Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys - but a commercial and recreational fishery worth millions of dollars.
Florida Bay is a sprawling estuary at the state's southern tip, covering nearly three times the area of New York City.
The headwaters of the Everglades - starting some 300 miles north near Orlando - used to end up here after flowing south in a shallow sheet like a broad, slow-moving river, filtering through miles of muck, marsh and sawgrass.
Historically, the bay thrived on that perfect mix of freshwater from the Everglades and saltwater from the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. It was a virtual Garden of Eden, home to a bounty of wading birds, fish, sea grasses and sponges.
But to the north of the bay, man's unforgiving push to develop South Florida has left the land dissected with roads, dikes and miles of flood control canals to make way for homes and farms, choking off the freshwater flow and slowly killing the bay.
The ill effects extend even across the narrow spit of land that makes up the Florida Keys to the shallow coral reefs in the Atlantic Ocean. Many popular commercial fish like grouper and snapper begin their lives in the bay before migrating into the ocean to the reefs.
"If Florida Bay heads south and there's a lot less fish in there, well, when that's done, it's all over down here," Burke says. "When that goes, your reefs are going to go, too, and it'll just be a chain reaction.
"You could argue that the bay has already collapsed," he adds.
Algae blooms block life-giving sunlight from penetrating the water's surface. Sea grasses that filter the water and provide habitat for the food chain are dying. And some migratory birds aren't returning.
"The health of Florida Bay is very much tied to the state of the Everglades, and the Everglades isn't improving either," says Tom Van Lent, senior scientist with the not-for-profit Everglades Foundation. "Their fates are one and the same."
For decades, the state has struggled to find a way to restore natural flow through the Everglades and curb the pollution caused by runoff from sugar farms, cow pastures and urban sprawl. It is the largest such wetlands restoration effort ever.
"Having that water coming down from the Everglades is key," says Rob Clift of the National Parks Conservation Association. "It has to be restored."
Attempts to fix the Everglades by constructing water treatment marshes and reservoirs, among other things, have been dogged by politics, funding shortfalls, and contentious, litigation-filled disagreements over the best solutions. And while land has been purchased and some projects completed, key restoration components are undone.
"It's really aggravating," Burke says. "We've seen very little, if any, really ground breaking projects that would help change the flow into Florida Bay."
A litany of lawsuits filed by parties favoring one solution over another are partly to blame, says Carol Wehle, executive director of the South Florida Water Management District, the state agency overseeing Everglades restoration.
Name an environmental group, and the agency has been sued by them.
Wehle calls them "obstructionists." Her agency heads back to court Aug. 6 for closing arguments in yet another lawsuit.
"There are a handful of people that choose not to participate in this process and instead use litigation, and who is losing? The environment is losing," Wehle says.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, who call the Everglades their ancestral home, have sued the water district repeatedly. It's the tribe and a few others who now have the district back in court as part of an effort to block the state's planned $536 million purchase of land in the Everglades from U.S. Sugar Corp.
Tribe spokeswoman Joette Lorion says the deal could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, leaving little money to pay for actual projects, and will create more delays as officials figure out exactly what to do with all the new land.
"Meeting upon meeting, and the Everglades continues to die," Lorion says.
The water district says the deal is a historic opportunity to take sugar out of production and provide land to build much-needed reservoirs and treatment areas to clean and store water.
Back on Florida Bay, Burke just wants something done before it's too late. To the casual onlooker, the area is stunning even today. But Burke knows better.
"In a lot of ways," he says, "it's still pristine and beautiful down here, but it's also on its last dying breath."

Hermes Thoth
08-05-2009, 07:09 AM
Yes. Kill the people.

DamnYankee
08-05-2009, 07:20 AM
Florida is a swamp and people where never meant to live there in any large numbers. I predicted this 35 years ago. *shrug*

PostmodernProphet
08-05-2009, 07:28 AM
I used to love that comic strip....when I was a child it was the first one I read when the paper came....

WinterBorn
08-05-2009, 07:37 AM
The long term effects of the damages done to the Everglades will not be known for many years.

This is just the beginning. The ecosystems are so interconnected that harm in one area can effect many, many other areas.

Hermes Thoth
08-05-2009, 07:40 AM
The long term effects of the damages done to the Everglades will not be known for many years.

This is just the beginning. The ecosystems are so interconnected that harm in one area can effect many, many other areas.

I just hope they kill all the people soon.

Topspin
08-05-2009, 07:41 AM
Florida is a swamp and people where never meant to live there in any large numbers. I predicted this 35 years ago. *shrug*

thank god nobody gives to shits about your predictions, your a hatefull ass.

Anybody who has been to the keys and done some snorkling or diving knows what a treasure this area is. They need to do what it takes to preserve it. Southerntool the Applachian Mt's certainly fit you socio-economic class.
As in you have a lot of class but it's all low.

SmarterthanYou
08-05-2009, 08:49 AM
Anybody who has been to the keys and done some snorkling or diving knows what a treasure this area is. They need to do what it takes to preserve it.

when the polar ice caps melt enough and the water level raises to cover the keys, they will then be preserved. Humans won't be able to live out there any more and destroy it.

Topspin
08-05-2009, 08:51 AM
luckily I go twice a year so I'm getting my fill.

DamnYankee
08-05-2009, 09:05 AM
thank[sic] god[sic] nobody gives to[sic] shits about your predictions, your[sic] a hatefull[sic] ass.

Anybody who has been to the keys[sic] and done some snorkling[sic] or diving knows what a treasure this area is. They need to do what it takes to preserve it. Southerntool[sic] the Applachian[sic] Mt's[sic] certainly fit you[sic] socio-economic class.
As in you have a lot of class but it's all low.
The area that I own in the Appalachian mountains has more rich retired Floridians than folks from any other state. :)

Topspin
08-05-2009, 09:11 AM
The area that I own in the Appalachian mountains has more rich retired Floridians than folks from any other state. :)

I'm sure they like most of us would think you an assss

DamnYankee
08-05-2009, 11:05 AM
I'm sure they like most of us would think you an assss Only the asses amongst them. *shrug*

SmarterthanYou
08-05-2009, 11:10 AM
Only the asses amongst them. *shrug*

is that kim kardashian in your avatar?

DamnYankee
08-05-2009, 11:14 AM
I have no idea. She was on an ad that popped up when I was doing some research this morning, and I found her image rather arresting. :)

Hermes Thoth
08-05-2009, 11:16 AM
I have no idea. She was on an ad that popped up when I was doing some research this morning, and I found her image rather arresting. :)

Are you trying to get STY riled up? He will not comply.

DamnYankee
08-05-2009, 11:18 AM
Are you trying to get STY riled up? He will not comply.
You're a dick, but a small one. :pke:

belme1201
08-05-2009, 11:25 AM
again

Florida Bay's ecology on the brink of collapse Associated Press/AP Online

By BRIAN SKOLOFF

ISLAMORADA, Fla. - Boat captain Tad Burke looks out over Florida Bay and sees an ecosystem that's dying as politicians, land owners and environmentalists bicker.
He's been plying these waters for nearly 25 years, and has seen the declines in shrimp and lobster that use the bay as a nursery, and less of the coveted species like bonefish that draw recreational sportsmen from around the world.
"Bonefish used to be very prevalent, and now we don't see a tenth of the amount that we used to find in the bay, and even around the Keys because the habitat no longer supports the population," says Burke, head of the Florida Keys Fishing Guides Association.
Experts fear a collapse of the entire ecosystem, threatening not only some of the nation's most popular tourism destinations - Everglades National Park and the Florida Keys - but a commercial and recreational fishery worth millions of dollars.
Florida Bay is a sprawling estuary at the state's southern tip, covering nearly three times the area of New York City.
The headwaters of the Everglades - starting some 300 miles north near Orlando - used to end up here after flowing south in a shallow sheet like a broad, slow-moving river, filtering through miles of muck, marsh and sawgrass.
Historically, the bay thrived on that perfect mix of freshwater from the Everglades and saltwater from the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. It was a virtual Garden of Eden, home to a bounty of wading birds, fish, sea grasses and sponges.
But to the north of the bay, man's unforgiving push to develop South Florida has left the land dissected with roads, dikes and miles of flood control canals to make way for homes and farms, choking off the freshwater flow and slowly killing the bay.
The ill effects extend even across the narrow spit of land that makes up the Florida Keys to the shallow coral reefs in the Atlantic Ocean. Many popular commercial fish like grouper and snapper begin their lives in the bay before migrating into the ocean to the reefs.
"If Florida Bay heads south and there's a lot less fish in there, well, when that's done, it's all over down here," Burke says. "When that goes, your reefs are going to go, too, and it'll just be a chain reaction.
"You could argue that the bay has already collapsed," he adds.
Algae blooms block life-giving sunlight from penetrating the water's surface. Sea grasses that filter the water and provide habitat for the food chain are dying. And some migratory birds aren't returning.
"The health of Florida Bay is very much tied to the state of the Everglades, and the Everglades isn't improving either," says Tom Van Lent, senior scientist with the not-for-profit Everglades Foundation. "Their fates are one and the same."
For decades, the state has struggled to find a way to restore natural flow through the Everglades and curb the pollution caused by runoff from sugar farms, cow pastures and urban sprawl. It is the largest such wetlands restoration effort ever.
"Having that water coming down from the Everglades is key," says Rob Clift of the National Parks Conservation Association. "It has to be restored."
Attempts to fix the Everglades by constructing water treatment marshes and reservoirs, among other things, have been dogged by politics, funding shortfalls, and contentious, litigation-filled disagreements over the best solutions. And while land has been purchased and some projects completed, key restoration components are undone.
"It's really aggravating," Burke says. "We've seen very little, if any, really ground breaking projects that would help change the flow into Florida Bay."
A litany of lawsuits filed by parties favoring one solution over another are partly to blame, says Carol Wehle, executive director of the South Florida Water Management District, the state agency overseeing Everglades restoration.
Name an environmental group, and the agency has been sued by them.
Wehle calls them "obstructionists." Her agency heads back to court Aug. 6 for closing arguments in yet another lawsuit.
"There are a handful of people that choose not to participate in this process and instead use litigation, and who is losing? The environment is losing," Wehle says.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, who call the Everglades their ancestral home, have sued the water district repeatedly. It's the tribe and a few others who now have the district back in court as part of an effort to block the state's planned $536 million purchase of land in the Everglades from U.S. Sugar Corp.
Tribe spokeswoman Joette Lorion says the deal could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, leaving little money to pay for actual projects, and will create more delays as officials figure out exactly what to do with all the new land.
"Meeting upon meeting, and the Everglades continues to die," Lorion says.
The water district says the deal is a historic opportunity to take sugar out of production and provide land to build much-needed reservoirs and treatment areas to clean and store water.
Back on Florida Bay, Burke just wants something done before it's too late. To the casual onlooker, the area is stunning even today. But Burke knows better.
"In a lot of ways," he says, "it's still pristine and beautiful down here, but it's also on its last dying breath."



Strange. Having lived in the Keys for 16 years and enduring the demise, I had a reply. It has disappeared. Thanks for the article, it's right on with more to add.

belme1201
08-05-2009, 11:40 AM
Florida is a swamp and people where never meant to live there in any large numbers. I predicted this 35 years ago. *shrug*


It was the Corps of Engineers that took on draining South Florida. Marjory Stoneman Douglas warned them over 60 years ago in her book, River of Grass. Instead, they dug "flood control" canals(sound familiar?) south of Miami, thus depriving the Everglades of water needed to assure recharging. In addition nutrient runoff from Big Sugar is killing bird and fish habitat. I lived for years at Mile Marker 98625 about 8 miles from Captain Burke and watched the destruction. Before Big Sugar and Big Money, it was Paradise.

belme1201
08-05-2009, 11:43 AM
thank god nobody gives to shits about your predictions, your a hatefull ass.

Anybody who has been to the keys and done some snorkling or diving knows what a treasure this area is. They need to do what it takes to preserve it. Southerntool the Applachian Mt's certainly fit you socio-economic class.
As in you have a lot of class but it's all low.

Was, sorry to say.

belme1201
08-05-2009, 11:59 AM
I have no idea. She was on an ad that popped up when I was doing some research this morning, and I found her image rather arresting. :)

And I was just admiring your loveliness.

uscitizen
08-05-2009, 12:03 PM
The enemy has always been we humans.
You can blame evil spritis, elves, devil, etc if you want but our path has been ours to choose. For those that believe the bible even says that.

DamnYankee
08-05-2009, 12:32 PM
And I was just admiring your loveliness. Homo. :pke:

DamnYankee
08-05-2009, 12:34 PM
It was the Corps of Engineers that took on draining South Florida. Marjory Stoneman Douglas warned them over 60 years ago in her book, River of Grass. Instead, they dug "flood control" canals(sound familiar?) south of Miami, thus depriving the Everglades of water needed to assure recharging. In addition nutrient runoff from Big Sugar is killing bird and fish habitat. I lived for years at Mile Marker 98625 about 8 miles from Captain Burke and watched the destruction. Before Big Sugar and Big Money, it was Paradise. Yes they spent millions back then to drain the swamps, now they're spending billions to restore them. The Corps did the same thing on the most major rivers in the US, fucking up the ecosystem. Now their biggest charge is to keep folks from doing what they used to do routinely. *shrug*

belme1201
08-05-2009, 04:13 PM
Homo. :pke:

Careful, we're supposed to be civil on this board. How am I to know she's not your beard?

Hermes Thoth
08-05-2009, 04:42 PM
The enemy has always been we humans.
You can blame evil spritis, elves, devil, etc if you want but our path has been ours to choose. For those that believe the bible even says that.

But in general, the green movement is a power grab by elites. They are the enemy of the rest of us.

DamnYankee
08-05-2009, 05:50 PM
Careful, we're supposed to be civil on this board. How am I to know she's not your beard? What is a "beard" in this context?

Minister of Truth
08-05-2009, 06:39 PM
But in general, the green movement is a power grab by elites. They are the enemy of the rest of us.

Yeah, fuck 'em all.

Hermes Thoth
08-05-2009, 06:41 PM
Yeah, fuck 'em all.

Basically. Their worldview is corrupt, their souls dilapidated, their underarms are rank.

uscitizen
08-05-2009, 06:42 PM
But in general, the green movement is a power grab by elites. They are the enemy of the rest of us.

HUH? The heart of the green movement is to conserve our world to keep it good and safe for the following generations.

As with anything a few do taint the pot for all.

Hermes Thoth
08-05-2009, 06:48 PM
HUH? The heart of the green movement is to conserve our world to keep it good and safe for the following generations.

As with anything a few do taint the pot for all.

No. It's so eugenicists can create reasons to kill other people, and so elitists can seize control of all resources and tax the shit out of everyone.

WinterBorn
08-05-2009, 07:38 PM
No. It's so eugenicists can create reasons to kill other people, and so elitists can seize control of all resources and tax the shit out of everyone.

You think the movement to slow the destruction of natural habitat is an excuse for eugenicists to kill people?

Maybe you could look at the facts behind what the environmental movement has done in the last few decades?

uscitizen
08-05-2009, 08:11 PM
The water quality in most KY streams has gone from poor (no eating of fish or swimming) to fair to good. All because of the efforts of the EPA and treehugger types.

Only Alaska has more miles of streams and rivers than KY does.

belme1201
08-05-2009, 08:34 PM
What is a "beard" in this context?

It's not the hair on your face.

Hermes Thoth
08-06-2009, 07:46 AM
You think the movement to slow the destruction of natural habitat is an excuse for eugenicists to kill people?

Maybe you could look at the facts behind what the environmental movement has done in the last few decades?

Some projects are valid.

The green movement as a whole is an ideological brainwash to incent people to kill other people, on behalf of the planet.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 07:50 AM
The water quality in most KY streams has gone from poor (no eating of fish or swimming) to fair to good. All because of the efforts of the EPA and treehugger types.

Only Alaska has more miles of streams and rivers than KY does. None of the clean up could have been accomplished without the polluters making a healthy enough profit to be able to improve their operations.

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 08:47 AM
None of the clean up could have been accomplished without the polluters making a healthy enough profit to be able to improve their operations.

Many polluters in KY close down a company and start up another one to avoid cleanup costs.

The companies did not do the cleanup. MOstly was done with tax dollars. After all we would not want to interfere with their profits now would we?

Hermes Thoth
08-06-2009, 08:53 AM
Many polluters in KY close down a company and start up another one to avoid cleanup costs.

The companies did not do the cleanup. MOstly was done with tax dollars. After all we would not want to interfere with their profits now would we?

This is a valid project. This is different than the bogus science of Man cause climate change, and the bogus remedy of of taxing energy usage. Conflating valid projects with bogus ones is your m.o. It's a nice try, but thinking people see through your game.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 10:40 AM
Many polluters in KY close down a company and start up another one to avoid cleanup costs.

The companies did not do the cleanup. MOstly was done with tax dollars. After all we would not want to interfere with their profits now would we?

If its cheaper to go bankrupt then companies will do that, leaving the government to pick up the tab. Democrats write laws that allow folks to avoid personal responsibility, so you reap what you sow. *shrug*

Canceled1
08-06-2009, 11:03 AM
thank god nobody gives to shits about your predictions, your a hatefull ass.

Anybody who has been to the keys and done some snorkling or diving knows what a treasure this area is. They need to do what it takes to preserve it. Southerntool the Applachian Mt's certainly fit you socio-economic class.
As in you have a lot of class but it's all low.

Oh yes! Thank GOD "nodbody gives to (sic) shits" and "fits you (sic) socio-economic class", and last but certainly not least, "your (sic) a hatefull (sic) ass."

I am sure you must serve as an ongoing example on certain writers blog sites of how the United States educational system has failed and failed miserably.

ZappasGuitar
08-06-2009, 12:09 PM
If its cheaper to go bankrupt then companies will do that, leaving the government to pick up the tab. Democrats write laws that allow folks to avoid personal responsibility, so you reap what you sow. *shrug*

So much for all the vaunted "personal responsibility" I keep hearing about, but what we've come to expect from many business owners. They're all capitalists until it's time to do the right thing, then they all turn to socialists and expect a bailout.

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 12:13 PM
If its cheaper to go bankrupt then companies will do that, leaving the government to pick up the tab. Democrats write laws that allow folks to avoid personal responsibility, so you reap what you sow. *shrug*

Dems push for tort reform? Deregulation? Sure some do but that kind of pro business stuff is part of the Republicans and even libertarians platform.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 12:28 PM
So much for all the vaunted "personal responsibility" I keep hearing about, but what we've come to expect from many business owners. They're all capitalists until it's time to do the right thing, then they all turn to socialists and expect a bailout. I've never supported a bailout.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 12:31 PM
Dems push for tort reform? Deregulation? Sure some do but that kind of pro business stuff is part of the Republicans and even libertarians platform.
Tort reform is good for everyone- except the trial lawyers, who are of course beholden to the Democrats. There are many regulations that are superfluous, redundant or overly restrictive and should be eliminated or streamlined.

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 01:12 PM
Tort reform is good for everyone- except the trial lawyers, who are of course beholden to the Democrats. There are many regulations that are superfluous, redundant or overly restrictive and should be eliminated or streamlined.

Wrong and wrong.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 01:18 PM
Nice explanation. :rolleyes:

ZappasGuitar
08-06-2009, 02:01 PM
I've never supported a bailout.

Companies that shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy to avoid cleanup costs are a big reason there are so many environmental "hoops" in place for businesses to jump through before they can begin any kind of construction.

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 02:07 PM
Companies that shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy to avoid cleanup costs are a big reason there are so many environmental "hoops" in place for businesses to jump through before they can begin any kind of construction.

Yep and why we have superfund.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 02:17 PM
Companies that shirk their responsibility by declaring bankruptcy to avoid cleanup costs are a big reason there are so many environmental "hoops" in place for businesses to jump through before they can begin any kind of construction. Most of the time it's not the company's responsibility, but a change in understanding of science or a policy change. As an environmental engineer I've worked with many clients with the opinion that the government should be held responsible for not changing the rules- what used to be legal then is not legal now- but they are now required to spend millions cleaning up what they could have avoided years ago for mere thousands.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 02:18 PM
Yep and why we have superfund. More money is spent on lawyers and bureaucrats than actual clean-up under that program. *shrug*

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 02:21 PM
More money is spent on lawyers and bureaucrats than actual clean-up under that program. *shrug*

Probably true, but it has cleaned up a lot of badly polluted places. Including some where our nuclear industries first flourished.

Hanford, WA has nuke wastes leakiing into the Columbia river drainage.
TN has nuke waste sites around Oak Ridge, etc..


On nuke power I am for it, but only after we settle the nuke waste problem.
Something we have not settled in over 50 years.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 02:24 PM
We have solved it, scientifically. Its called "reprocessing" followed by "Yucca Mountain". We've been waiting over two decades for a political solution to it.

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 02:25 PM
We have solved it, scientifically. Its called "reprocessing" followed by "Yucca Mountain". We've been waiting over two decades for a political solution to it.

So there are no issues with storing it in Yucca mountain? All that is solved?

Of course it is political. No one want's it in their back yard.
I personally think each state capitol should have an accompanying nuke storage facility for that states waste only. Knowing politicians, it would be stored safely.

ZappasGuitar
08-06-2009, 02:29 PM
Most of the time it's not the company's responsibility, but a change in understanding of science or a policy change. As an environmental engineer I've worked with many clients with the opinion that the government should be held responsible for not changing the rules- what used to be legal then is not legal now- but they are now required to spend millions cleaning up what they could have avoided years ago for mere thousands.


I can see your point, but something has to be done about making companies take responsibility for their actions. Maybe in exchange for a guarantee that the business will not just file bankruptcy the Government can agree to not modify any applicable environmental laws while said business is operating and current on all taxes and such.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 02:50 PM
I can see your point, but something has to be done about making companies take responsibility for their actions. Maybe in exchange for a guarantee that the business will not just file bankruptcy the Government can agree to not modify any applicable environmental laws while said business is operating and current on all taxes and such.

The government's not willing to do that. They have a big hammer and unlimited funds to pay their lawyers, and can also just simply freeze assets or take the money out of their bank accounts.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 02:54 PM
So there are no issues with storing it in Yucca mountain? All that is solved?

Of course it is political. No one want's it in their back yard.
I personally think each state capitol should have an accompanying nuke storage facility for that states waste only. Knowing politicians, it would be stored safely.
You're not advocating the best scientific solution, which is what I've stated. Is it perfect?- no, but it is certainly better than what you're your proposing, which is also of course a political impossibility in most states so would result in decommissioning of most nuclear energy plants.

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 04:47 PM
Ok, I'll explain.

Tort reform would put limits on the amount of money that can be awarded in a lawsuit. While that sounds good, it can also screw the person who was harmed by the negligence of a company or person.

Suppose Lunatics Inc made a widget that they knew (and it can be shown they knew) was faulty or dangerous. Suppose Mr. John Q. Public died because of the faulty widget. He was 25 and had two small children.

What is the price of having your father at your Little League games, High School & College Graduation, or walk you down the aisle when you marry?

$250,000? $2.5 million? If the kid is 3 when Dad dies,





Suppose a Dr screws up and does irreparable harm to Jane Q. Public. She is 17 when it happens and will now need live-in help for the rest of her life.

If she lives to be 75, that is 58 years. $2.5 million dollars sounds like a lot. But it works out to be less than $45k a year. Hard to keep herself taken care of with that amount. And given the recent history of investments, thats not much of a guarantee either.




Suppose Lunatics Inc knew about the faulty widget, but between the recall and the bad press caused by the recall, they figured it would cost them $5 million. If the lawsuit limits were $2.5 million, it would be a smart business decision to leave the faulty widgets out there.

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 04:52 PM
Yep and removing liablility for airlines flying planes over a certain age. This was done in FL.
Under a Bush.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 06:27 PM
....

If she lives to be 75, that is 58 years. $2.5 million dollars sounds like a lot. But it works out to be less than $45k a year. .... $2.5 million at 7% generates $175K annually without touching the principle, loser. *shrug*

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 06:47 PM
7% annually?

How much of that 2.5 mill goes to lawyers?

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 06:49 PM
$2.5 million at 7% generates $175K annually without touching the principle, loser. *shrug*

And you would be willing to guarantee that she could get 7% throughout her entire life?

Ask the people who retired with "plenty" of money before 2008 how that nest egg is doing now.

According to this site: http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/elder_care/elder_care_cost_finder.html

Having in home healthcare 24 hrs a day will cost $166,440.00 per year in Chicago IL.

And the same care in NY will run $131,400.00 in average annual costs.

If they live in Charlotte NC it will run them an average $148,920.00 per year.


Doesn't leave much for their other living expenses and doctor bills, does it?

I also think calling someone "loser" without researching the information is inappropriate for this particular forum.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 06:52 PM
7% annually?

How much of that 2.5 mill goes to lawyers? 7% over a 58 year life is extremely conservative, and that is after wealth management fees.

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 06:57 PM
7% over a 58 year life is extremely conservative, and that is after wealth management fees.

And that is hoping that we have no serious downturns in the market, like the one that has happened recently.

But if (and thats a big "if") you are correct, the person living in Charlotte NC would have less than $27k per year to live on after paying for in-home health care. That would be all that is left for meds, food, mortgage, transportation, medical care (visits to the Dr ect), utilities, ect.

Far from wealthy.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 07:02 PM
Only a fag would think like that. Average returns don't yield the same year to year. *shrug*

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 07:06 PM
Only a fag would think like that. Average returns don't yield the same year to year. *shrug*

Exactly! So some years would yield less. And the person would be left with less than I quoted to live on.

The point is, $175k isn't a lot of money when you have to have 24 hour a day help.

And if the economy tanks again in the next 50+ years, they could lose large chunks of the principle.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 07:10 PM
Only a fag would blow the profits from fat years up his partner's ass so they wouldn't be available in lean years.

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 07:13 PM
Only a fag would blow the profits from fat years up his partner's ass so they wouldn't be available in lean years.

Considering that the average amount left would be less than $27k a year, there is not going to be a lot left.

Between the lean years and inflation, it would not be enough to stay out of an institution.



So much for the brilliance of tort reform. Unless you have a more significant argument?

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 07:16 PM
Only a fag would think that $175k averages to $27K. Or some guy with an 18 year old boy as a wife, which is really the same thing I suppose. *shrug*

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 07:20 PM
Only a fag would think that $175k averages to $27K. Or some guy with an 18 year old boy as a wife, which is really the same thing I suppose. *shrug*

No, only someone bright enough to do the math that shows a person living in Charlotte NC would spend an annual average of $148,920.00 on 24 hour a day live-in health care, would have less than $27k a year left from the $175K income.

Do try and keep up? Insults aside, let me know if what I post is to complex for you.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 07:21 PM
OIC A straw man. Would thunk that? {area inappropriate}.

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 07:25 PM
OIC A straw man. Would thunk that? You're such a fag.

Straw man? Your favorite dodge!

However, I did post the link that showed how I got the number for the cost of in-home health care.

And subtracting that figure from the $175k is simple arithmetic.

I am using facts and industry calculations.

DamnYankee
08-06-2009, 07:29 PM
You're stupid calculation assumes that Medicaid doesn't kick in, you {area inappropriate}.

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 07:36 PM
You're stupid calculation assumes that Medicaid doesn't kick in, {area inappropriate}.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/

There is a chart about halfway down the page that shows the level of net income that you can have and still qualify for medicaid.

The top level for families and individuals who are blind, disabled or age 65+ is $29480.00 in net income.



There are exceptions to the numbers quoted in that chart. But why should the tax payer be liable for the injury suffered at the hands of a single company?

uscitizen
08-06-2009, 07:52 PM
Only a fag would blow the profits from fat years up his partner's ass so they wouldn't be available in lean years.

Or lose it in the market.

WinterBorn
08-06-2009, 08:03 PM
Or lose it in the market.

Or see inflation eat the court award down to nothing.

Minister of Truth
08-07-2009, 01:30 AM
Seriously, SM?

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 06:18 AM
http://www.health.state.ny.us/health_care/medicaid/

There is a chart about halfway down the page that shows the level of net income that you can have and still qualify for medicaid.

The top level for families and individuals who are blind, disabled or age 65+ is $29480.00 in net income.



There are exceptions to the numbers quoted in that chart. But why should the tax payer be liable for the injury suffered at the hands of a single company?

Medicade was set up for such things. If it wasn't available, the award would be larger than the figure that you pulled out of {Area Inappropriate}.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 06:19 AM
Or lose it in the market. Only a {edited: area inappropriate} would invest his life savings in a non-diversified portfolio.

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 06:53 AM
Medicade was set up for such things. If it wasn't available, the award would be larger than the figure that you pulled out of your semen lubricated asshole.

And medicaid will pay $148k for 24 hour in home care?

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 06:56 AM
You're pulling numbers out of your ass and asking me to defend them. Only a {edited: area inappropriate} would do that.

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 07:00 AM
You're pulling numbers out of your ass and asking me to defend them. Only a fag would do that.

I posted a link to the source of my numbers. And those are not very high numbers for in home healthcare.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 07:08 AM
You pulled the 2.5 mil award figure out of your ass along with some arbitrary length of term, then divided the first figure by the second and claimed that was what the victim would receive annually. I showed you how stupid that was, that the interest on the award itself was several times more than your stupid division. So you pulled a hypothetical situation out of your ass then "documented" the cost.

You refuse to acknowledge your initial error and are going to great lengths to bury it in bullshit.

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 07:19 AM
You pulled the 2.5 mil award figure out of your ass along with some arbitrary length of term, then divided the first figure by the second and claimed that was what the victim would receive annually. I showed you how stupid that was, that the interest on the award itself was several times more than your stupid division. So you pulled a hypothetical situation out of your ass then "documented" the cost.

You refuse to acknowledge your initial error and are going to great lengths to bury it in bullshit.

I was using an arbitrary figure in my example. Then you tried to make it seem as if it were plenty of money.

I used the information from the link to show the true costs of in home care. Thereby showing your quote of $175k a year as a paltry sum for the victim.

It showed that Tort Reform is not what those who champion it claim it is. It harms the victim and protects companies from liability for their own negligence.

There are flaws in the lawsuit system, but tort reform is not the solution.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 09:20 AM
I was using an arbitrary figure in my example. Then you tried to make it seem as if it were plenty of money.

I used the information from the link to show the true costs of in home care. Thereby showing your quote of $175k a year as a paltry sum for the victim.

It showed that Tort Reform is not what those who champion it claim it is. It harms the victim and protects companies from liability for their own negligence.

There are flaws in the lawsuit system, but tort reform is not the solution.
You neglected to consider the time value of money- a huge error which I have pointed out and you refuse to recognize. Also, your arbitrary figure cannot be compared with an actual figure in a legitimate argument.

Cancel7
08-07-2009, 09:22 AM
And I've accused Damo of being boring.

I'm so happy I found that "ignore thread" option. It's great.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 09:25 AM
And I've accused Damo of being boring.

I'm so happy I found that "ignore thread" option. It's great. Being ignored- I'm sure your used to that. *shrug*

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 11:31 AM
You neglected to consider the time value of money- a huge error which I have pointed out and you refuse to recognize. Also, your arbitrary figure cannot be compared with an actual figure in a legitimate argument.

If it costs the victim $148k to have 24 hour in home health care, what does the "time value of money" change about the figures we have discussed?

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 12:08 PM
You {area inappropriate} up, and I reported it here: Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - we have met the enemy and he is us (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=487476&postcount=58)

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 12:19 PM
You fucked up, and I reported it here: Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - we have met the enemy and he is us (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=487476&postcount=58)

That link is to you calling me a loser.

Report away if you must.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 12:47 PM
Actually, I wrote this: "$2.5 million at 7% generates $175K annually without touching the principle, loser. *shrug* ", setting you off on your latest hissy fit.

Minister of Truth
08-07-2009, 01:34 PM
Southern Man is a {edited: area inappropriate}

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 05:54 PM
Actually, I wrote this: "$2.5 million at 7% generates $175K annually without touching the principle, loser. *shrug* ", setting you off on your latest hissy fit.

I threw a hissy fit? lol I was arguing the facts. You, on the other hand, had your posts edited half a dozen times.

I think its obvious who threw the hissy fit.

Mott the Hoople
08-07-2009, 06:36 PM
Florida is a swamp and people where never meant to live there in any large numbers. I predicted this 35 years ago. *shrug*I have to agree with you. The situation in Florida is not sustainable. The watershed cannot handle the numbers of people present. It's a matter of time before it collapses.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 07:00 PM
I have to agree with you. The situation in Florida is not sustainable. The watershed cannot handle the numbers of people present. It's a matter of time before it collapses. Same with Arizona. 150 years ago a man could travel through Arizona on horseback by traveling alongside the rivers. There was plenty of trees for shade and firewood, fish in the rivers and rabbits in the fields for food, and subsistence from cactus fruit and other succulents. Then they moved people there, sunk wells and pumped the groundwater dry, eventually lowering it more than 200'. The rivers are now dry except during storms, there are no fish and almost no wild game, and shade is few and far between.

DamnYankee
08-07-2009, 07:04 PM
I threw a hissy fit? lol I was arguing the facts. You, on the other hand, had your posts edited half a dozen times.

I think its obvious who threw the hissy fit. So Damo's decided to enforce his new policy. That doesn't change the fact that you screwed up, or you don't understand the concept of interest, then went all hissy when I pointed it out. *shrug*

WinterBorn
08-07-2009, 10:01 PM
So Damo's decided to enforce his new policy. That doesn't change the fact that you screwed up, or you don't understand the concept of interest, then went all hissy when I pointed it out. *shrug*

I understand perfectly well. I also understand the quoted cost of $148k to have 24 hour in home care in Charlotte NC. And that will eat up most of the interest earned.

I have said that reform is needed. But Tort Reform (as has been put forth in recent years - since first started as a movement by the tobacco industry) is not the answer.

If we are going to press for personal responsibility, then companies should be responsible for their actions as well.

DamnYankee
08-08-2009, 12:03 AM
I understand perfectly well. I also understand the quoted cost of $148k to have 24 hour in home care in Charlotte NC. And that will eat up most of the interest earned.

I have said that reform is needed. But Tort Reform (as has been put forth in recent years - since first started as a movement by the tobacco industry) is not the answer.

If we are going to press for personal responsibility, then companies should be responsible for their actions as well.

Again you bring up some factual numbers to compare with your made-up ones. It still doesn't make a sensical argument no matter how much you hope and wish for it to be so. Be a man and admit that you screwed up.

Mott the Hoople
08-08-2009, 04:39 AM
Same with Arizona. 150 years ago a man could travel through Arizona on horseback by traveling alongside the rivers. There was plenty of trees for shade and firewood, fish in the rivers and rabbits in the fields for food, and subsistence from cactus fruit and other succulents. Then they moved people there, sunk wells and pumped the groundwater dry, eventually lowering it more than 200'. The rivers are now dry except during storms, there are no fish and almost no wild game, and shade is few and far between.
Yea they sold what little water they had to southern California. Those aren't the only two examples. The Mississippi delta is another. They can't continue the agricultural practice of constantly rotating cotton and rice. Eventually the ecosystem will break down.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-08-2009, 04:59 AM
I have to agree with you. The situation in Florida is not sustainable. The watershed cannot handle the numbers of people present. It's a matter of time before it collapses.

If energy costs go down a lot (which will only happen with a lot of research into renewables) we could supplement the water supply with desalinization.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-08-2009, 04:59 AM
So there are no issues with storing it in Yucca mountain? All that is solved?

Of course it is political. No one want's it in their back yard.
I personally think each state capitol should have an accompanying nuke storage facility for that states waste only. Knowing politicians, it would be stored safely.

Another of USC's retarded solutions.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-08-2009, 05:02 AM
You're not advocating the best scientific solution, which is what I've stated. Is it perfect?- no, but it is certainly better than what you're your proposing, which is also of course a political impossibility in most states so would result in decommissioning of most nuclear energy plants.

Not all states have an ideal place to store nuclear waste. USC's solution would put a dramatically increased amount of lives at risk with no conceivable benefit.

Modern nuclear plants simply do not produce a lot of nuclear waste, not nearly as much as the old ones. Models on the drawing board produce no nuclear waste and have passive shutdown features which make a meltdown physically impossible. The vast majority of nuclear waste that is ever going to be produced has already been produced.

FUCK THE POLICE
08-08-2009, 05:04 AM
Ok, I'll explain.

Tort reform would put limits on the amount of money that can be awarded in a lawsuit. While that sounds good, it can also screw the person who was harmed by the negligence of a company or person.

Suppose Lunatics Inc made a widget that they knew (and it can be shown they knew) was faulty or dangerous. Suppose Mr. John Q. Public died because of the faulty widget. He was 25 and had two small children.

What is the price of having your father at your Little League games, High School & College Graduation, or walk you down the aisle when you marry?

$250,000? $2.5 million? If the kid is 3 when Dad dies,





Suppose a Dr screws up and does irreparable harm to Jane Q. Public. She is 17 when it happens and will now need live-in help for the rest of her life.

If she lives to be 75, that is 58 years. $2.5 million dollars sounds like a lot. But it works out to be less than $45k a year. Hard to keep herself taken care of with that amount. And given the recent history of investments, thats not much of a guarantee either.




Suppose Lunatics Inc knew about the faulty widget, but between the recall and the bad press caused by the recall, they figured it would cost them $5 million. If the lawsuit limits were $2.5 million, it would be a smart business decision to leave the faulty widgets out there.

You'd probably get more than one suit. And refusing to do the recall would cause irreprable damage to your brand that would probably cost you a lot more than the lawsuits themselves. Probably the only reason the Tylenol exists today is because of the way the handled the Tylenol killer incident.